+1

Phil

@independentid
www.independentid.com
[email protected]

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:08 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Brian Campbell <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> +1 for "rba"
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, William Denniss <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Fair point. RBA is a fairly common acronym for Risk-Based Authentication, 
>> how about going with "rba"? Would align with existing "mfa", "mca" 
>> definitions (while also saving 1 character and helping the ambiguity issue).
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> I hear you, but we’re trying to keep the values short for space reasons – 
>> just like other identifiers in JWTs.  Ultimately, the values aren’t 
>> meaningful without referring to the spec in the first place, so the place to 
>> beef up the meaning is in the description in the spec – not in the “amr” 
>> value.  If you’d like to suggest any edits in that regard, have at it!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>                                                             Thanks,
>> 
>>                                                             -- Mike
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: William Denniss [mailto:[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>] 
>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:40 PM
>> To: Mike Jones
>> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] “amr” Values spec updated
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Looking good, thanks for putting this together.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I wonder if we should say "risk_based" rather than just "risk" to avoid 
>> ambiguity (i.e. that it's not a risky authentication method, rather, it was 
>> risk-based).  "user" seems to work well, e.g. "user mfa pwd otp" tells a 
>> logical story.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> I’ve updated the Authentication Method Reference Values spec to incorporate 
>> feedback received from the OAuth working group.  Changes were:
>> 
>> ·        Added the values “mca” (multiple-channel authentication), “risk” 
>> (risk-based authentication), and “user” (user presence test).
>> 
>> ·        Added citations in the definitions of Windows integrated 
>> authentication, knowledge-based authentication, risk-based authentication, 
>> multiple-factor authentication, one-time password, and proof-of-possession.
>> 
>> ·        Alphabetized the values.
>> 
>> ·        Added Tony Nadalin as an author and added acknowledgements.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The specification is available at:
>> 
>> ·        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-amr-values-01 
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ftools.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-jones-oauth-amr-values-01&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c1f21f86f4e4a4858dff908d2a4cf71f3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=I5MFZbd1BMANLuVeDH24boBVJ1CSwybIg3P1RqTZweU%3d>
>>  
>> 
>> An HTML formatted version is also available at:
>> 
>> ·        http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-jones-oauth-amr-values-01.html 
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fself-issued.info%2fdocs%2fdraft-jones-oauth-amr-values-01.html&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c1f21f86f4e4a4858dff908d2a4cf71f3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=rpA2%2fLQGs5mdomEP4xBu7T9V4PWzVi2j8d1VTzPCCZg%3d>
>>  
>> 
>>                                                             -- Mike
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> P.S.  This note was also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=1437 
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fself-issued.info%2f%3fp%3d1437&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c1f21f86f4e4a4858dff908d2a4cf71f3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=sv5HbcRW%2bjRbYcd71MRZBcFdks%2froaDqZ%2fqTKOJrJ%2fo%3d>
>>  and as @selfissued 
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fselfissued&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c1f21f86f4e4a4858dff908d2a4cf71f3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ex43UP5ytuIMsfe6SkABmPAvJbeOpXPbHQbnvixUNcQ%3d>.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth 
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2foauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7c1f21f86f4e4a4858dff908d2a4cf71f3%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=hlMpGbGhXBCYimtMJa9IfEzWSFqXRy3kKHN8Z%2bLxjn0%3d>
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to